Say Anything Blog

I believe that the not-so-hidden message that the media is trying to put forth is that terrorist attacks have increased because of our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Not coincidently this is also the belief of many liberal Democrats which use this as a reason for withdrawal.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

docdave: Not just the belief of liberal Democrats, it is much wider than that! The Democrats and MSM only spread the defeatism, it is the people too busy, laxy and apathetic to keep abreast of the news that buy into this crap.

I guess if we leave Iraq and Afghanistan today, by tomorrow evening 99.9% of all terrorist attacks will end and the death rate will go down to near zero? Yeah, do you want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn, I can let you have it at a bargain price?

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Correction: it wasn’t the media that said the number of terrorist attacks rose in 2006, but the State Department.  Although most of the attacks were in the Middle East, the report also noted a rise in Asia and Africa.

You can’t count for 2007 yet because the year isn’t over.  However, even if attacks did go down this year globally, don’t you think would have more to do with the improving of national and international intelligence, security, and cooperation than what’s happening in Iraq?  Surely, we are foiling more attacks this year than last year. 

Haven’t we already established that there was no proof of any global Jihadism in Saddam-controlled Iraq before the war?  If so, then what would the inavasion have to do with the war on terrorism (besides giving terrorists more excuse to attack us)?

Correction: it wasn’t the media that said the number of terrorist attacks rose in 2006, but the State Department.

But it was the media that chose to report the State Department report as an overwhelmingly negative thing when, in reality, terror attacks are down all over the globe with the exception of the middle east.

And yes, Saddam had connections to international terrorism.  See: His sponsorship of suicide bombers against Israel, for one thing.  But that doesn’t matter.  That’s in the past.  Right now al Qaeda is in Iraq and expending all sorts of resources to fight us there.  If we pull out those resources are going to be devoted to attacks elsewhere.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I don’t think the situation in Israel has improved any because of the Iraq invasion either.  Besides, if these suicide bombers were so much part of global jihadism, why haven’t there been many (any?) terrorist acts in other parts of the world where the culprits were from Palestine?  As far as I know, they tend to stick to their own causes.

Saddam was a secular socialist, and he didn’t permit religious extremism in his country.  Al-Qaeda did not flourish in Iraq before the war, but they are definitely flourishing now.

I don’t think the situation in Israel has improved any because of the Iraq invasion either.

But the global terrorism situation outside of the middle east has improved significantly.  Which means that Bush’s strategy has pushed the terrorists back onto their own turf.

And I, for one, would rather fight them there than here.  Why you don’t feel the same way is beyond me.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I agree with you; we should fight them there instead of here.  My argument is that Saddam wasn’t part of global jihadism, so defeating him didn’t help us any in that aspect.  The only thing we have done in Iraq was turn it into a breeding ground for terrorism, and now we’re stuck with the obligation of keeping the lid on as long as possible.  If we leave, then the lid will come off and the country will explode.  It was our fault, and that’s why we can’t leave right now, but we can’t stay forever either.

If terrorist acts are down globally - and I haven’t seen any official reports stating that - then it’s not likely related to what we’re doing in Iraq.  Bush has done other things to thwart terrorism, such as help improve the efficiency and cooperation between the various intelligence organizations in the US and with other countries.

Let’s give credit where credit is due.